The 2012 elections are a three ring circus: House, Senate and presidency.

In the House, the GOP starts with a 242 seat majority. Democrats would have to net 25 seats to win control of the House. Can anyone really count 25 possible pickups for the Dems before one begins to subtract vulnerable Dems?

Democrats planned poorly when they won resounding victories in 2006 and 2008. Someone should have told them that redistricting happens every ten years following election years ending in a zero. Republicans chose wisely. Their landslide year was 2010 and they gained six governors and 711 state legislators and adding subsequent party switchers and special elections, there are now 24 states with complete GOP control of governor and both houses of the legislature that will redistrict for 218 House seats and five states with GOP control of both houses with a Democratic governor: Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire and Montana. Democrats control only eleven states with 114 House seats: California, Illinois, Washington, W. Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and key state Vermont. Redistricting will make it harder for Dems to regain lost seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin.

In the Senate there are 23 Democrat seats up and only 10 Republican seats up. The GOP seats are in nine states that survived the 2006 blowout - suggesting they will be tough to dislodge. Massachusetts is understandably competitive. Of the 23 Democrat seats about half are in competitive states like North Dakota, Nebraska, Virginia and Montana. It would be easy for the GOP to win the Senate and difficult for the Dems to hold same.

As to the presidency the Obama campaign cannot campaign on “Hope and Change” or “Four more Years” or “Are you better off than you were four years ago.” Maybe a green themed campaign: Envy are us.

In some alternate universe, President Obama follows up on his reform of healthcare and financial regulations by pivoting to an overhaul of public education in the United States. Instead of spending 2011 on the predictable, partisan ground of raising upper income taxes while growth is weak, Obama might have spent the year making a case that a vibrant economy demands a skilled, advanced workforce and that our outdated method of educating our children is inadequate to the challenge.

Alas, that is not the reality we live in. Obama’s signature plan of incentivizing states to embrace their own reforms, The Race to The Top, is being nibbled to irrelevance; rather than spending political capital to revamp No Child Left Behind, the administration is following the easy course of killing it softly with waivers; charter schools have gone two straight State of the Union addresses without being mentioned; and if the president believes that the stratification in the quality of our schools from one zip code to another is a major contributor to income inequality, he has scarcely said so.

Had Obama adopted education reform as an agenda item, he would have profited from the Republican inertia on the subject. Whether it was Rick Perry on the days he remembered his pledge to abolish the Department of Education, or Newt Gingrich promising to downsize the department to a clipping service for inventorying data, or Mitt Romney trotting out old rhetoric about “local control”, the GOP presidential field has been one long yawn on the notion of education as a public priority.

It’s a bipartisan omission that signifies the power of each party’s political base. For Obama, bold action on educational accountability seems to be a casualty of a post debt-ceiling reelection strategy that is base reinforcement all the time. On the right, denigrating the public sector is easier work than laying out a foundation to make its elements, including education, more productive.

The blunt truth is that it is no longer tenable to make teaching the one profession where weak performance is no grounds for termination. It is not sustainable that teaching is the sole creative profession where it is suspect to reward performance with bonuses. It makes no sense that a 50 year old chemist or executive has no pathway to enter the classroom to teach science or civics. It is indefensible that a 25 year old Ivy League science grad who wants to teach for two years has a harder time getting a teaching certificate than a C level education major from a college struggling to keep its accreditation. It’s impossible to explain why establishing a leadership track to train young professionals to be principals, modeled after officer candidate school in the military, is third rail material in education politics.

As Republicans rethink how to beat Obama in an environment where consumer confidence is rising, and a case is building for his economic stewardship, they would do well to sound off on these hard truths, and to link them to an indictment of how the Democratic Party’s entanglement with its political clients destroys innovation. This, by the way, is another reason so many conservatives and reform minded independents still pine for Mitch Daniels, or Jeb Bush, or Chris Christie. They’ve all built governing legacies around revitalizing education, and reminding divided electorates why liberalism struggles so much to solve the future.

Earlier this week, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie stepped in it when pushed for a referendum on gay marriage.

A supporter of civil unions, activists in the state held out hope that he would either support the bill moving through the Senate or at least give state GOP reps his tacit approval to override his veto. But no. Instead, Gov. Christie not only said he supported a referendum, he said that he bets folks in the 1960’s would have preferred to have a referendum on civil rights. Wait, WHAT? Are you kidding me? I need to have a word with you governor:

Here’s the deal. Civil rights should never be put up to a vote. Because - and my God, you HAVE to know this - if they really did vote on civil rights in the 1960’s, Jim Crow would not have ended until who knows when. Could you imagine if we left desegregating schools up to a vote? Or ending slavery? There’s a reason why legislation had to be passed in the 1960’s. Because certain parts of this country were having no part of integration and equal rights for African Americans, and they were only going to change if they were forced into it.

I have to believe that deep down, you know this. I don’t agree with you on much (except for the fact that the Giants are basically a N.J. team). But I do think that you are a smart politician, which leads me to believe that you knew exactly what you were saying.

The DCCC, House Democrats and groups such as the House Majority PAC have been very clear about expectations. Our side has not guaranteed taking back the House but has maintained that we CAN take back the House by expanding the number of seats in play including against House Republicans who previously had safe districts.

If anyone should be blamed for prematurely popping champagne bottles this cycle it’s House Republicans.

Looking back, in January of 2010 before taking the majority, Republicans led in an NPR poll by 5 percent and by 3 percent in a CNN poll.

In fact, as late as this past summer, NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions declared House Republicans will add 16 seats to its 48-seat majority in the 2012 election.

Despite their arrogance, the reality is that Speaker Boehner and the Republican Majority’s first year in the House has been an unmitigated disaster in the court of public opinion.

For the past year, House Republicans have done everything in their power to fight for tax breaks for the richest one percent at the expense of Medicare for seniors and jobs for middle class families. As a result, Republican incumbents in swing districts across the country are in deep trouble back home and Republican control of the House is in serious jeopardy.

Just this week, House Majority PAC released polls in eight targeted Republican House districts, which show all eight Republican incumbents in deep trouble back home. Each of the House districts polled (OH-06, MD-06, IL-08, CO-03, IA-04, MI-01, OH-07, and OH-16) has completed the redistricting process. They come on top of the 12 post-redistricting districts polled back in October showing Republicans in increasingly toxic political environments. For more details, visit House Majority PAC website at http://www.thehousemajoritypac.com/press/2012/01/25/eight-gop-incuments-trouble/

These days, even Republicans such as former NRCC Chairman Tom Davis are now admitting Democrats COULD retake control of the House. They can make excuses all they want, but the fact is John Boehner and House Republicans have no one to blame but themselves…

Now, all of a sudden the issue of term limits has returned, more radical and more popular than ever. Why is that?

People are frustrated with the political system. There are many problems that seem insoluble, and Congress at times does not appear willing to address them effectively. Drugs, crime, the economy, healthcare, the looming crisis in Social Security and Medicare, the federal deficit, the breakdown of our schools and other public institutions - all of these are serious and dramatic problems,and the American people are justly worried about them.

But term limits aren't going to make things any better. They're only going to make these problems more difficult to address politically. With a Congress hampered by term limits and filled with rookie legislators still learning the ropes and short term "veterans" angling for jobs when their term runs out, it will be next to impossible to get meaningful and effective legislation out of Congress.

Despite the historical record, term limits are being sold as a quick and painless cure to everything that ails our body politic. The people behind term limits are promising one easy solution to a variety of complex problems. The Framers knew that there are no quick fixes, and they found out the hard way that term limits do not deliver as promised. That's why they refused to put term limits in the Constitution, and that's why we should honor their wisdom and foresight by keeping elections open to everyone, even experienced politicians.

While all the political attention has been focused this past week on Mitt versus Newt in Florida, I think little attention has been given to the potential threat Ron Paul poses to the GOP this fall.

If you closely listen to his supporters, you get the feeling that he an his libertarian supporters will be launching a third party bid for the presidency. If this happens, the Republican party can more or less kiss away any hopes they have for retaking the White House. Paul could command up to 10 percent of the electorate and most of that would come at the expense of the GOP nominee. President Obama could then win reelection and not even have to carry the majority of the popular vote. It's ironic because this November will mark the 100th anniversary of Theodore Roosevelt ill-fated attempt to recapture the presidency.

His political vehicle was the Progressive Party a.k.a. the Bull Moosers after the ruling Republican Old Guard establishment quashed his comeback bid. He didn't win but neither did the Old Guard's William Taft either as the former Rough Rider pulled too many votes away from the Republican column. A similar disaster awaits Republicans this time around if Paul decides to split away. Not even all the money Mitt or Newt could raise from 527 groups could avoid this stark reality.

These debates have turned the Republican presidential primary into a reality show. If the 2008 Democratic primary was The Amazing Race that followed compelling characters coast to coast, then the 2012 GOP primary is The Biggest Loser. Pity those poor Republicans. Mitt Romney will probably still be the nominee, but the longer the primary drags on, the less people like him.

The terror that Republican insiders feel at being left with Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul as their finalists was evident after the State of the Union. No sooner had Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels given the Republican response than the Twittersphere exploded with fantasies of drafting Daniels for president. So deep is Republican dissatisfaction that they were willing to ignore the fact that Daniels stands 5’5” and was the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush. If the solution to what ails Republicans is W’s Mini-Me, their problems are worse than we thought.

Recently Romney saw his ratings among independent voters drop 23 points in one week. The reason that swing voters have abandoned Romney isn’t that he has to lurch to the right to appeal to the “teavangelicals” who dominate the Republican Party. The problem with Mitt is that he’s a bit of a jerk, for Pete’s sake.

Romney is the game show contestant who looks likable but who can’t shut up long enough for you to actually like him. Lieutenant Commander Data of Star Trek: The Next Generation related to humans better than Mitt Romney does, and he was an android. It continues to surprise me that someone perceived as willing to say anything to anyone ends up saying the wrong thing so often.

By his own admission, he thinks corporations are people, he likes firing people, and he considers the $374,000 he earned giving speeches “not very much.” Romney has said so many things that will help reelect the president that his mouth should be declared an Obama Super PAC.

Romney’s talent at disconnecting with people was on display in the NBC debate in Tampa.

“I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more,” said Romney in one of his more awkward moments. “I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.”

Whether Romney paid more taxes than legally required is not the point. He might as well have said, “I’m as tall as I am and not an inch taller.” What does Romney do for debate prep? Watch Monty Python?

This followed on the heels of one of the stranger debate moments in recent memory when Romney talked himself into a hypothetical in which he got out of paying all his taxes. It began, as so many things do in Republican debates, with Newt Gingrich talking.

“So I’m prepared to describe my 15 percent flat tax as the Mitt Romney flat tax,” said Gingrich. “I’d like to bring everybody else down to Mitt’s rate, not try to bring him up to some other rate.”

And then Mitt, who decided to teach another lesson in how to win enemies and alienate people, clarified that capital gains would not be taxed at all under Gingrich’s tax proposal.

“Under that plan, I’d have paid no taxes in the last two years,” said Mitt. Truly, Romney was so tone deaf in this debate that the debate organizers should have let him park in a handicapped space.

Mitt Romney’s problems have nothing to do with the fact that he makes $20 million a year and can’t hit a curveball. Romney says that Obama wants to turn America into an entitlement society while he wants to turn us into an opportunity society. Actually, Obama thinks all Americans should be entitled to the same opportunities. Romney thinks the way for us all to achieve the American Dream is to allow him to keep more of his money, and not even all of his supporters agree with his position that the government should tax work more than wealth.

If Mitt Romney’s got problems, the Republican establishment doesn’t think Newt Gingrich is a solution. Before too long, Romney should have the nomination locked up, at which time his handlers can deal with the real problem facing the campaign: the candidate.

It's not just the media's fault that Ron Paul gets the short end of the microphone.

Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign gets much less news coverage than the other GOP candidates. Both casual observation and political science research validates this inescapable conclusion: he gets the short end of the microphone. But the captious reasons his supporters have leveled against the press are neither valid nor sufficient explanations for the dearth of his free media. It’s not the result of bias against him or a conspiracy to marginalize him, but rather three powerful forces that create an unlevel electoral playing field that jeopardizes the democratic process.

The first force is the reductive nature of poll-based election coverage. The press conducts tracking, and match-up polls to satisfy their need to efficiently plan news coverage and the public’s desire for “horse-race” journalism. These polls are also the basis for strategic decisions that determine how much money, free press, and opportunities a candidate get’s to increase momentum. Absent from this equation is substantive reporting on the field’s positional differences on policy. Policy stories don’t grab eyeballs, and the ones that do are inconsequential determinants of whether or not a candidate can effectively lead a nation of 310 million people. Eighty percent of the public isn’t interested in parsing through the candidate’s stances on complex issues like monetary policy, deficit spending, and tax reform, nor do they want to be bothered with the intricacies of foreign policy. They want to know quickly how many furlongs their favorite is from the pacesetter. Indeed, Congressman Paul won far more straw polls than the rest of the pack, but those victories were much less newsworthy than Rick Santorum’s late surge before the Iowa Caucus, Newt Gingrich’s rollercoaster standings through the history of his campaign, or Mitt Romney’s tax return-related poll drop last week.

The second force is how effective a candidate’s communication staff handles the press. The media focus on Congressman Paul grew dramatically after his 3rd place Iowa finish to the point of him being chased by mobs of reporters at his various New Hampshire campaign events. The chaos led him to snap at reporters and dumbfounded his campaign and security personnel. Not to mention deprived his followers an opportunity to speak with him. At one breakfast meet-and-greet, Congressman Paul abruptly left as a storm of pancakes whirled around booths packed with jockeying aces. His campaign’s lack of crowd control put a fast, hard stop on his media gains. And Paul had complete control over preventing this. It’s important for any candidate, especially one who has run for president before, to know how to manage the press corp.

The final force is the historically relaxed interpretation of the FCC’s equal time rule. The rule, codified in the Communications Act of 1934, stipulates that radio and television stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidate who requests it - if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on prime time it must do the same for another candidate. However, the rule isn’t valid if the airtime is a documentary, interview, scheduled newscast, or on-the-spot news events. In 1983, Congress changed the rule to allow debates not hosted by media outlets to be considered news events. The 2012 debates are hosted by political organizations or other entities with the media outlet providing sponsorship. This explains why certain candidates get excluded from participation and others don’t get enough airtime. The interesting paradox here is that this loophole has come back to bite the GOP candidate who most avidly supports deregulation.

Ron Paul is getting the short-end of the microphone, but not because of bias or conspiracy. The unequal playing field of election coverage is the result the media’s business and audience needs, a candidates communications decisions, and the strength of media regulations. But ultimately, the culpability rests on the shoulders of the public. Until citizens take a stronger interest in following campaigns beyond the horse-race and pushing politicians to reform the system, we’ll continue to get elections where strong candidates with interesting policy proposals get swept under the rug because they lack the appropriate level of “horse race” panache. And that’s not good for the democratic process.

My guess is that Thursday night’s debate clinched Florida for Romney. There’s still a lot of volatility, and anything can still happen. But should Newt fade, what does that say about the tea party? What influence does it still have? Where’s the juice?

Nothing says “this is not 2010” as much as having Mitt Romney be the 2012 Republican nominee. I think he’ll ultimately win the nomination because many Republican voters will find him the least unpalatable of a bunch of bad choices. But without passion, without a base, without commitment, I also think you’ll see Romney dwindle against Obama over time.

Even so, what Republicans stand for and who they are is very much a topic of discussion. So long as they continue with birther nonsense, comments (as Rick Santorum punted on) about Obama not being legitimate, a closet Muslim (an insult both to Obama and to Americans of that faith) and other similar out-of-the-mainstream views, they will marginalize the Republican Party and themselves.

Romney winning the nomination would be a sign of waning tea party clout but not a sign of acceptance of reality. There’s plenty of room in our system for “small government, low taxes” political views and for a conservative viewpoint. There is no room in the political firmament for radical unacceptance of Obama’s legitimacy.

The first thing job creators did after the State of the Union address was to take deep breaths from a paper bag.

What most had hoped would be a clear vision for economic expansion was instead sclerosis posing as vigor, coercion as support, and pie slicing as a growth policy. A speech ostensibly devoted to unity instead induced claustrophobia as the president declared how he will pick winners and losers, regulate and subsidize, and reward and punish. “Just don’t come to me on the day of my daughter’s wedding,” he might have added.

Obama’s attempt to appear pro-business deluded only those not actually in business. CEO’s can feel the difference between a handshake and a python, and they, unlike the president, look past the next election. It’s why they were so disappointed that the address omitted his vaunted Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which issued its extraordinary “Roadmap to Renewal” a week before the SOTU. This who’s who of American business - all handpicked by Obama and including Jeffrey Immelt of GE, Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg, Clinton economic advisor Laura D’Andrea Tyson, and the CEO of the largest renewable energy generator in the country, among others - worked for months to develop a bipartisan agenda for job creation In the eyes of nearly every editorial board that reviewed it, they succeeded, but not, apparently, in Obama’s.

The president asks two dozen superstars who actually create jobs how to create more jobs, and then blows them off because the answer doesn’t fit his campaign theme. Their report now joins the equally bipartisan Bowles-Simpson deficit commission recommendations in the same White House trash can. And he calls congressional Republicans intransigent?

The address dripped with such dissonance. His support for a simpler tax code was followed immediately by proposals to complicate it. His Buffett Rule was piled atop what is already an effective 44.75 percent rate on corporate dividends and gains. He spoke of taxing only millionaires yet conspicuously left entrepreneurs in the next $750,000 below them out of his reassurances. He was “all-of-the-above” on domestic energy projects a week after killing the largest to cross the Oval Office desk in 30 years, one the Washington Post called a “no-brainer” for approval. And after declaring he’ll make America’s companies more nimble and competitive he boasted of the new ways he will burden and coerce them.

This is what business heard from the president on Tuesday night, along with this memorable bit of obliviousness: “Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?” Nope, not at all.

Ken FeltmanPast president; International Association of Political Consultants :

The Yuk-Yucky scale

My two-year-old grandson knows that a good laugh is a "yuk." He likes to yuk it up. He also knows that if something is "yucky," he does not want to touch it or eat it. Yucky is not funny. If two-year-olds know the difference between "yuk" and "yucky", what about the Republican candidates for president and the Super PACs backing them?

Yes, they do know. They have studied the effectiveness of each variety. That is why they are serving up yucky fare.This year's campaign ads left the yuks behind some time ago. Now, it's pretty much yucky all the time.

The ads in Iowa started out with more information and laughs than low blows. That changed and now ads in Florida are embarrassingly mean spirited. Others are so close to the edge of truth that the sponsoring candidate or PAC must be hoping that the average viewer will take the ad the "wrong" way and believe the innuendo, not the actual words, about another candidate.

In this contagion of free-spending on yucky ads, no citizen in an afflicted state can avoid coming in contact with the dreaded Super PAC productions. The only inoculation is to flee. So I have come up with a Yuk-Yucky Scale to rate ads. Funny or serious ads can get up to five Yuks for the best, most enjoyable and informative productions, on down the scale to a single Yuk for bland but not infectious ads. Awful ads get Yuckies: One Yucky to five Yuckies for the most toxic creations. Now, if I can find a few dozen people with strong constitutions or high tolerance to obnoxious tripe, perhaps we can set up a rating scale similar to the movies. Maybe ad agency executives, politicians and political consultants have what it takes to rate the ads. Then, each viewer can determine his or her limit. One person may be able to stay in the room for an ad with three Yuckies. Another may barely be able to get through a one Yucky ad.

I am not as discerning as a two-year-old, so I have rated Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney after watching their ads or ads run by Super PACs supporting them: Gingrich has an average score of three Yuckies. Romney comes in at two Yuckies. Gingrich was saved from four-star Yucky status by a few funny ads. Romney ads have little in the way of redeeming humor. I am sad to note that both Gingrich and Romney get high marks for relentlessness. You can grade the ads yourself. Just go to YouTube or the candidates' websites. The Super PACs and candidates seem only too eager to display their atrocious handiwork.

The State of the Union address by President Obama spoke eloquently of the resourcefulness of the American people and the restoration of the American Dream, but neglected to come to terms with the long-broken promise to our nation's children, that of a robust, effective, and equal education.

He spoke of rewarding great teachers, but again shied away from demanding that ineffective teachers be quickly removed from our schools. He spoke of other countries doubling down on education but again equated that with greater financial investment rather than the actual dedication necessary as showcased by other nations every single day.

For three years, the president and his Secretary of Education have refused time and again to truthfully address that which continues to so obviously tear apart the fabric of our public education system - lack of public accountability for our teachers, lack of meaningful school choice for our parents, and the passive acceptance of a one-size-fits-all approach to the schooling of our country's children. During his address, President Obama spoke easily and often of innovation, responsibility, and momentum. Sadly, save for a very few shining examples, these core elements of progress continue to elude a great majority of our schools, and by extension, a great majority of our students.

If the president truly wished to draft an effective economic blueprint for success, he would look to the baseline indicator of our country's future promise – the education of our children. When less than 30 percent of our nation's high school seniors are proficient in math and science and more than a third of our college students find themselves in remedial classes, a dramatic priority shift must be demanded of our leaders. We have models that work to serve the best interests of our kids, and our country. It's time the President stops paying lip-service to education, starts supporting true innovation in our classrooms, and removes the unspoken barriers to our country's educational success. That's an America within our reach.

I listened carefully to President Obama’s State of the Union address to see what he might say that was new and important about education.

He said “Let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones.” Over the past few years, many thousands of teachers have lost their jobs, but the President didn’t say who would give schools the resources to keep good teachers on the job. Most states are cutting the budget for their public schools, not giving them new resources.

Then, he said, “And in return, grant schools flexibility: to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.” He got plenty of applause for that line, but it was the most puzzling of all. Most teachers wish that they could “stop teaching to the test.”

The reason that they are not allowed to stop teaching to the test is because of President Obama’s Race to the Top program. States that won money from Race to the Top are now offering bonuses to teachers if their students get higher test scores, just as the President recommended in his State of the Union.

Conservative Republican governors love the president’s Race to the Top (Newt Gingrich campaigned for it with Secretary Arne Duncan in the fall of 2009), and they too are embracing test-based evaluation of teachers and merit pay plans, even when (as in Florida) they don’t have the money to pay for bonuses. Firing teachers is easy. Finding replacements who are better is a problem that no one has addressed.

Inspired by the Obama administration’s Race to the Top, states and districts are hurriedly assembling evaluation plans to judge teachers by their students’ test scores and to fire teachers that don’t produce a rise in scores. That’s just what the President recommended in his State of the Union address.

More than half the states are now threatening to fire teachers and close schools based on test scores. So, teachers know that they must teach to the test if they want to win a bonus and they must teach to the test or they might be fired.

Scholars have warned that these methods are flawed and will lead to firing those who work with the most challenging students, those who have disabilities and who are English language learners. Teachers rated "effective" one year might be rated "ineffective" the next year, depending on who is assigned to their classes. Most teachers don't even teach tested subjects.

President Obama’s Race to the Top program is wildly unpopular with the nation’s teachers because the overwhelming majority want to teach with creativity and passion. They don’t want to teach to the test. Drilling students on how to guess the right answer to multiple-choice questions is a mechanical activity that educators and students alike find deadening and repetitive.

But President Obama tells them that they should stop doing what his administration requires them to do if they want to keep their job. If they don’t teach to the test, they won’t last long. This is indeed puzzling. He did not enroll his daughters in a school that fires teachers based on their students’ test scores. Why is he inflicting this crazy regime on the nation’s teachers?

I may be the only one, but I’ll own up to it. I laughed at President Obama’s State of the Union pun about crying over spilled milk. Bad jokes aside, regulating is a serious business, one we need to learn to do better. Unintentionally, President Obama’s joke helps illustrate the need to understand how regulations actually work.

The butt of his joke was an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule from 1973 that requires businesses to take steps to prevent oil spills. Milk contains animal oils, and the rule covers all sorts of oils: mineral, animal, and vegetable. In January, 2009, the Bush Administration formally proposed exempting spilled milk from the EPA’s rule. About a year ago, another crying-over-spilled-milk pun appeared in a Wall Street Journal editorial as Republican members of Congress urged the Obama EPA to move forward on the Bush proposal.

President Obama took pride Tuesday in reporting that his EPA did finally put the milk exemption into effect: “We got rid of one rule…that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill - because milk was somehow classified as an oil.”

And that’s when he inserted his pun about “crying.” Pausing for groans, the president continued: “I’m confident that a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder.”

What’s really funny - in another sense of the word - is how the president’s story creates a substantial misimpression of what the EPA actually did. If you thought the agency declassified milk so it’s no longer considered oil, think again. The EPA still considers milk to be an oil, a large spill of which the agency notes would “present significant risks to the environment.”

And if you thought the EPA decided farmers no longer need government to look over their shoulders, you’d be wrong again. Rather than trusting farmers, EPA trusted other regulators. It exempted dairy farms and milk plants because they are already subject to U.S. Department of Agriculture and state regulations. If milk tanks already are routinely cleaned and inspected to comply with sanitary regulations, the EPA figures that leaks and other structural damage will be discovered in the process.

The spilled milk exemption may be fully warranted, but for much different reasons than the president’s speech would suggest.

The president’s joke was off in more ways than one this past Tuesday night, but fortunately his Jobs Council had at least one thing on the mark in its report from last week. The Council called for improved regulatory analysis, including better independent reviews of “actual costs and benefits.”

The EPA’s spilled milk exemption illustrates this need. The exemption is unlikely to save even close to what the president claimed because the EPA’s murky economic estimate of annual savings included a variety of one-time or occasionally avoided expenses. In addition, the agency’s scant four-paragraph discussion of the potential health and environmental effects from the exemption was itself nothing but a joke.

Jokes about regulation are fine, even corny ones that make no one laugh except me. But improving regulation requires a substantial effort at better - more serious - research and analysis of what really is happening when government wields its regulatory authority.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.